Congressman Kinzinger’s American Mission

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) is an impressive man. A veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, he was first elected to Congress in 2010 at the age of 32. He carries himself with an affable and congenial demeanor, and has exhibited a willingness to work across the aisle—all rare traits in a hyperpartisan Washington. His military service, like that of every American veteran, is deserving of the utmost respect. It’s unfortunate, then, that his foreign policy is so misguided.

In an hour-long conversation with the Wilson Center’s Jane Harmon Thursday morning, Rep. Kinzinger largely parroted the typical talking points in favor of increased American involvement in Afghanistan. Admittedly, the argument is as eloquent as it is familiar. As Kinzinger stated, “The mission of the United States of America is to be an example of self-governance to billions of people that don’t have what we have but are desperate for it.” According to Kinzinger, the Afghan people are clearly “desperate for it,” as “United States favorability in Afghanistan is around 70 or 80 percent.” Therefore, we must altruistically commit to “completing the mission,” however long it takes.

A commitment to “completing the mission” is certainly laudable, and it’s understandable that Kinzinger would couch foreign policy in these terms considering his military background. The problem, though, is that Kinzinger’s “American mission” is deeply flawed. America’s mission—insofar as it has one—is similar to that of any government: to care for the common good of the society over which it rules. Foreign policy, then, should stem from this domestically-based mission; a properly ordered understanding of government requires that foreign military involvement directly benefit the domestic common good. Kinzinger’s “mission” effectively inverts government responsibility, prioritizing the foreign over the domestic.

Much of this hawkish tendency can be attributed to a certain brand of American exceptionalism. Kinzinger is, in his own words, an “unabashed American exceptionalist,” which apparently means that we must meddle in as many regional conflicts as possible. While interventionism doesn’t exactly follow from American exceptionalism, it’s easy to see how this flawed reasoning has achieved such staying power.

American exceptionalism persists as a reason for interventionism because it is too often mistaken for patriotism. A healthy patriotism—even one that holds that America is “exceptional,” loosely defined—doesn’t require America to export a way of life around the globe, and especially not militarily. But when American patriotism includes the belief that every other country would be better off if they were just more like us, then questioning interventionism is, well, unpatriotic. And that’s one label no American wants.

So until American exceptionalism is no longer conflated with patriotism, until we abandon sweeping statements about the “mission of America,” we’re likely to see many more Adam Kinzingers pushing for American involvement in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and wherever else we deem anathema to the “American example of self-governence.”

Re: “His military service, like that of every American veteran, is deserving of the utmost respect. It’s unfortunate, then, that his foreign policy is so misguided.”

That’s the problem right there. If a service member were to tell me that he served 3 tours in Iraq, my response would not be “Thank your for service!” or “Thank you for defending our freedoms!” Rather it would be, “Well whose fault is that?”

The United States has an all volunteer military. And the volunteers supposedly have free will and a basic understanding of how the military is utilized by the Elites in Washington. So why should they be thanked and congratulated for signing up to do the bidding of those same arrogant and stupid Elites while concomitantly wasting BILLIONS of our tax dollars?

The veterans I would thank are the ones who were seduced into signing up by the war-monger propaganda and then got out when they realized they were hoodwinked.

So why should Adam Kinzinger be labeled “an impressive man”, when he demonstrates that he is little more than stupid and naive? And was happily part of the multi-TRILLION dollar Global Cop con that was/is Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well that’s easy enough. Because the warped cult of military worship that now saturates American society enforces exaggerated deference that it does not deserve.

There are countless obvious examples beyond Kinzinger demonstrating that being a military veteran (up to and including the Brass in the Pentagon) and a first class Nitwit are not disjoint.

Just because someone enters the service voluntarily does not mean they deserve assignments that don’t serve the best interests of the US. It is our responsibility to ensure we don’t send them in hams way needlessly or carelessly. That is our fault, not theirs.

So as is customary and meant sincerely, I appreciate your service. But the notion that we have a mission in Iraq or Afghanstahn because of a poll number reflecting our favorability is hardly evidence that we should have invaded or engaged in making the country a democracy.

It was a promise poorly considered and poorly engaged. That you seem unable to reconcile US exceptionalism with ineffective foreign policy decisions and implementation is disconcerting.

Would that you consider it is entirely possible to be exceptional and exceptionally wrong as were both missions of conquest in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The mission for the US is stated quite clearly in the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I would be curious to see this poll. And while there may be instances when the US has cause to war, it’s clear that our favorability as to cause for regime change just isn’t in the document of our founding.

Just because someone served in the U.S. military doesn’t mean that the rest of us should throw ourselves at their fee and their positions on foreign policy are unassailable. Kinzinger is clearly wrong and his positions are a radical departure from the non=interventionist intentions of America’s founders.

Adam the super patriot is in favor of Wahabi throat cutters to depose Assad, who is protecting Christians from the excesses of extremist Muslims.

Little Adam reaches across the aisle because at best he is a moderate but on most items he’s a center leftist which isn’t surprising since it seems the Republican establishment wants to be known as center-left instead of center-right.

Thank you SteveM for your clear and to the point comment. So sad as this Memorial Day we remember the war dead, especially those who died in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as a result of the continuing misadventures of our politicians and Pentagon brass. As a Vietnam veteran, I cringe when people thank me for my service. I was too young and deficient in courage and conscience to say no when drafted.

I guess to be an expert in foreign affairs one needs to to invade foreign countries at least 5,000 miles from our shores and kill and maim unarmed,innocent, women and kids with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction.Not only does it make one a foreign affairs expert but also a heroic defender of our freedom.

Kinzinger’s ‘facts’ are highly questionable. For example, he states that the ‘United States favorability is 70- 80%’. If so, Afghanistan would be more or less stable, and its current government at least able to govern more of its people and territory than the small areas it controls.

He also says: “The mission of the United States of America is to be an example of self-governance to billions of people that don’t have what we have but are desperate for it.”
Well, Afghanistan may not be desperate for anything that the US can offer except money. In the name of our ‘democracy’ we created huge damage to Afghanistan’s social and cultural institutions and its own methods of governance.
We introduced Al Qaeda to expel the Russians and overthrew a functioning government, and then after a new functioning government run by the Taliban had replaced it,
we overthrew it because the Taliban would not grant preferential pipeline rights to Unocal, a company close to the Bush family, and would not agree to the extradition of Osama bin Laden after both the FBI and CIA refused to certify that bin Laden had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

I would suggest Kinzinger go back to school and learn a little history and logic (though not at the Wilson Center or at the knee of Jane Harmon), before he tries to use his experience as a military service in Afghanistan to bolster his credibility. It’s seems as if he didn’t learn the basics when he was there.

SteveM:
As a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m not offended by your comment, but I do find it rather foolish. Clearly, you believe that only results matter, and have no conception motivation. I did not personally benefit from going to war as a volunteer (Infantry to be precise), at least not on the same way as the “Elites,” but I do not regret what I did whatsoever. Throughout human history, men have gone to war and died without the reward of the “Elites.” What your comment hides is cowardice and contempt for men willing to push themselves to their limits for the men around them. Furthermore, it seems to me that you find it more honorable for a truly tyrannical government to draft men and force them to die for something that they will not benefit from. Again, you are a coward and a fool. Leave those things that are truly difficult to those of us willing to do them and keep your idiotic opinions in your tiny mind. That way your foolishness is not exposed to the world.

” . . . we overthrew it because the Taliban would not grant preferential pipeline rights to Unocal, a company close to the Bush family . . .”

Maybe am being a jerk here. That is not my intention. Actually, the Taliban were quite open to the pipeline. Though how many Taliban communities that includes would be hard to decipher in my view.

And it is that same dynamic that made the issue of Osama Bin Laden very difficult. The Taliban leadership was split over the Bin Laden issue. None of them were happy that he brought US anger to their shores, especially after out help with the Russian invasion.
_________________

I appreciate your service and I am fully aware of why I am saying I appreciate it.

“Furthermore, it seems to me that you find it more honorable for a truly tyrannical government to draft men and force them to die for something that they will not benefit from.”

This is the rationale that accompanied the end of the draft. But the reason for the draft is beyond that. This is a nation and defending it should not hoisted on the backs merely of those who choose to defend it.

We all either benefit from that defense or we all suffer its woes. It’s one of the reasons that I reject in full the use of Mexican nationals and others used to fill those gaps. It is the US Department of Defense. And every citizen should be expected to serve when the need arises. Even if that needs turns out to be wholly unnecessary, it’s that “chipping in” that should cause us question.

And I fully understand that on occasion the need will be one of moral or otherwise generous service to others. A draft will help ferret out that discussion.

People forget that this American Democracy ensconced in a Republic is unique in the world and is only 240 some years old…with many changes along the way. Nobody else has this….not Canada, not Brtain or anyone else in the world. But everybody who loves the idea of freedom and a vote to determine who governs them wants to come here. Europes Democracy’s are only since the end of WWII though they made a weak go it in the 19th century and some got close between the World Wars only to get squelched in WWII. So those of youthful age may think that the world we know now has been for centuries, but should be taught that the US is one of a kind…and our freedom is fragile…to be protected and practiced by an educated and moral citizenship.